boards

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that 'delete' is destructive, that actions may require specific permissions, or any side effects. The word 'manage' hints at mutation but does not transparently describe effects or limitations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with only two sentences. The first sentence identifies the resource, and the second provides minimal domain context. It is front-loaded, but the second sentence is marginally useful and could be considered padding, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite the rich schema, the description does not provide enough high-level context for an agent to understand when to use this tool, how it relates to projects, or what actions are available. It lacks behavioral and usage context, making it incomplete for a CRUD tool with no output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the parameter descriptions are detailed (including conditional requirements for 'id' and structured 'data' fields). The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description says 'Manage Planka boards' which is a generic verb and does not specify the specific operations (get, create, update, delete) that the tool performs. It adds context about boards containing lists and cards, but the core purpose is vague and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like lists or cards.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'lists' or 'cards'. It does not mention any prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. There is no information about when to choose 'boards' over other tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.